jim said:We're in Win2k mixed mode. We have a PDC Emulator to accomodate our
NT4-based legacy apps. Can we introduce a Win2k3 domain controller in
this
environment? Would it "break" anything? I know there are different
versions of A.D. depending on your environment.
jim said:Ok, so a mixed mode environment made up of Win2k DC's, Win2k3 DC's, and a
PDC emulator will work.
The PDC emulator handles the legacy clients and the Win2k and 2k3 DC's will
run at A.D. 2.0?
I should've mentioned that this is being done with the goal of installing
Ex2k3 (we're currently running Ex2k). I know they won't get *all* the
benefits of a pure Win2k3 native mode environment, but it should work
without effecting legacy stuff, yes?
We still have many clients that
require NTLM 1.0 and i don't want to break them.
Ulf B. Simon-Weidner said:Hello Jim,
You will always have a PDC-Emulator since it fulfills additional tasks.
YES.
If you don't have DCs with other operating systems you can even switch
into native mode.
Your NT4 memberservers and clients will work against
the PDC-Emulator no matter what mode the domain / forest is in,
There is really nothing much special about the PDC emulator
for legacy machines (including servers) if they have been
properly updated with DSClient.
Even without, they just don't realize that any DC (except BDCs)
can accept machine and user password changes.
Ulf B. Simon-Weidner said:[..]There is really nothing much special about the PDC emulator
for legacy machines (including servers) if they have been
properly updated with DSClient.
Even without, they just don't realize that any DC (except BDCs)
can accept machine and user password changes.
Typo: they just don't realize that any DC (except DCs holding the PDC
role) can accept machine and user password changes.
Herb Martin said:Ulf B. Simon-Weidner said:[..]There is really nothing much special about the PDC emulator
for legacy machines (including servers) if they have been
properly updated with DSClient.
Even without, they just don't realize that any DC (except BDCs)
can accept machine and user password changes.
Typo: they just don't realize that any DC (except DCs holding the PDC
role) can accept machine and user password changes.
No, not a typo. With AD DCs any of these DC
can accept password changes.
BUT older clients think that only the "PDC" can do
so without the DCClient upgrade they remain
dependent on the PDC Emulator for that specific
task.
DSClient makes them "DC aware" in the sense that
ANY DC (not including BDCs in a mixed domain)
can accept those password changes.
I know what it does, however if I read your sentence right you stated:
Without DSClient the Clients don't realize that any DC (except BDCs)
can accept password changes.
So if my understanding of the english language is correct the backet
should mean "except the PDC (or DC holding that role)".
They don't
realize that the other DCs are able to change passwords, but they know
that the PDC is able to change it.
Maybe I'm just getting your sentence wrong, but we mean the same.
Herb Martin said:The above is correct -- we are likely just getting hung up
on the language.
My sentence is awkward with the parentheses.
No, that is not what I wrote.
It should parse like this:
Any Win2000 or Win2003 DC can accept changes.
BDCs cannot accept changes.
Legacy clients without DSClient upgrade do not realize
that any DC that is not a BDC can accept changes.
Then we can add:
With DSClient upgrade clients WILL realize that all DCs,
except for the BDCs, will accept changes.
The above is correct.
Yes.
OK - thanks - guess it's pretty clear for the OP now ;-)